© Charles Chandler
A new method for studying astrophysics is now yielding fascinating results. Instead of mindlessly accepting existing constructs that are untestable by definition (e.g., dark matter, dark energy, etc.), this new method is based entirely on laboratory physics. It solves problems that have defied previous efforts by integrating all of the provable forces into non-linear systems, where competing forces cause instabilities that resolve into the distinctive forms that we observe. Mainstream theories acknowledge only inertia and gravity, and if those forces can't fully explain something, the theorists account for the discrepancies with untestable inventions. The new method acknowledges inertia, gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces, and demonstrates that the resulting combinatorial complexity can plausibly resolve into a wide variety of forms. When two or more configurations of forces appear to match the explanandum, additional data are tested against the expectations of each configuration. In the end, this method settles on the most probable combination of known forces, given the available data. And nothing within the problem domain has been found to necessitate the invention of anything new.
As straight-forward as this sounds, it begs the question of how this can be considered a "new" method — why isn't this the conventional approach?
In other disciplines, it would be. But modern astrophysics is dominated by concepts developed by Einstein and Eddington in the early 1900s, before the discovery of nuclear forces, and before the emergence of an atomic model that integrates Newtonian, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces into a unified framework. At the macroscopic level, this model is now performing famously, and is universally accepted in the disciplines of chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, etc. In its mature form, it just hasn't been applied back to astrophysics.
So why is astrophysics lagging behind terrestrial disciplines?
The main reason is simply that its hypotheses are so much harder to test. Most of what we study in astrophysics can only be observed, because of the vast distances separating us and the explanandum. More significantly, it is easy to test phenomena that can occur in terrestrial conditions, but hard to test the extremes of temperature and pressure (or lack thereof) found elsewhere in the Universe. Most of space contains cryogenic plasma in a near-perfect vacuum, while stars are comprised of highly supercritical fluids. Only very recently have scientists begun to investigate such conditions, and the data that can be applied directly to astrophysics are sparse when compared to terrestrial fields of focus, resulting in uneven progress in the physical sciences. And in a slowly moving discipline, the existing paradigm can become deeply entrenched. Then the full implications of new laboratory findings might be overlooked, especially if a shift in paradigm is required. Such is the case in astrophysics.
Nevertheless, the laboratory evidence continues to accumulate, and the implications for astrophysics are startling. Black holes and neutron stars, as described in existing literature, are certainly not allowed by atomic theory. The application of recent research shows how the existing constructs can be replaced by powerful force feedback loops, using stuff we have here on Earth, taken to extreme limits by the scale of the phenomena. The result is a fundamentally new conception of the heavens.
The most striking aspect of this approach is that it yields tangibility. Those are known particles and forces out there — we just didn't know that they were capable of such dramatic manifestations. So this approach has an immediacy that just isn't present in the existing literature. It's hard to relate to astrophysics when the prerequisite is acceptance of counter-intuitive contortions of general relativity. But when conceived as the products of terrestrial factors, just at astronomical scales, we know that in a laboratory big enough, we could make these things ourselves, and it all becomes powerfully real.
[Note that this material is available in a PDF on vixra, though this gets updated more frequently than that does.]

↑ UP Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite®
© 2010~2017 SCS-INC.US